On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 01:26:16PM +0100, Martin v. L?wis wrote: > Soobok Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > If option A wins, I see a chaos: > [...] > > But, Most homepages in east asia use local charset /encoding. And > > that requires localcharset<->unicode conversion that produces > > compatibility CJKs which will be further fed into nameprep. > > Korean IME produces compatiblity-CJK-equivalent KSX characters in > > interactive input session on the url bar in browsers. > > Whether this would cause chaos is still questionable. First, I > understand that these are Chinese compatibility characters, so your > experience with Korean IME might not be relevant.
I agree. Korean compatbility CJKs are in every day CJK use, but CNS11643 compatibility CJK may or may not! I guess they will be rarely used. > The question is > rather whether users that use IMEs which produce CNS 11643 could enter > these characters, and whether they could also enter the > compatibility-normalized character instead. > > [It appears that it will be hard to find an IME which supports the > full CNS 11643 repertoire in the first place]. Whether or not full CNS11643 support is rare does nothing to do with the current issue. In any cases, _if_ someone enters those characters, he will get errornous results surely! That is the concern. > > In any case, the idea that incorrectly-normalized characters could > cause chaos seems unlikely. "Chaos" does not mean stringprep/nameprep is a total failure. For example, stringprep/nameprep is useful and satisfactory for everyday hangul syllable use! My concern is that even such partial failures would make chaos _in some cases_. We can't ignore this. We should do "something", but i am not sure what to do yet. > > > Yes. This issue is not new problem. We had already discussed . And > > concluded it is not a big problem. but, this instance of 5 chars > > seems to need serious decision that we had not expected, iMO. > > the pure possiblity become the reality. > > What is the change here? Why is U+2F868 more real than U+F951? As i stated above, whether they are rare/real is not the issue. Do you agree? Soobok Lee > > Regards, > Martin
